Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.

Do you really think that's going to change anything? Do you imagine it's even possible to repeal the second amendment through the legal channels? You'll never get it ratified by three fourths of the states and you'll never see it come up in a constitutional convention.

Most of the people opposed to your viewpoint aren't saying "well sure I agree with you, but the constitution.." and they aren't going to change their minds just because of a constitutional change. Most pro-gun people believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right which is recognized by the second amendment - not granted by it.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted? No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

redmid17:bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.

You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.

Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.

Dimensio:A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.

What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

Dimensio:If a ban upon a component, such as a threaded barrel or a pistol grip, results in no demonstrable benefit, then the ban is excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, a current proposal in California will ban the sale of all semi-automatic magazine-fed long guns.

I have no idea what the purpose of the component ban is, so I can't comment on its efficacy. I'll have to trust that you know what you're talking about in that it's not been effective in achieving its goal. My experience with California gun owners, though, is that they're fairly irrational regarding firearms laws. I trust that you are not, and perhaps that single law should be repealed.

Click Click D'oh:But is it necessary for the purchase? You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase. You weren't talking about operating in public.

No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted? No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

bigpete53:What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

To avoid hearing damage, to avoid spooking wildlife, to improve accuracy, to avoid upsetting neighbors, and because they're fun. In most places they're considered a courtesy and they're sold without restrictions.

Thank Hollywood and moral panic for the draconian suppressor restrictions we have in the US.

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship. Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?

Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.

EVERY armed cop has a taser? Are you sure about that?

I didn't say that they do. At this point probably most do, they are pretty common.

Are you saying that the cops are given guns and then told -- remember, if you have to use your gun, shoot to wound -- try to hit their leg, don't aim for the center of mass.

You said "we give them..." and not "we give SOME of them..." so I assumed all.

Also, I'm not certain, but I imagine that cops are told center mass, as it's the easiest shot. Any officers care to comment?

bigpete53:No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.

If you purchase a car without a license you can have it trailered to your home or to a private racetrack.

I don't believe target practice is allowed in any national park (national forests and BLM land may be okay though).

You really need to work on thinking before you type. Damned near everything you say is wrong and/or stupid.

bigpete53:What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

Common misconception. A silencer doesn't conceal anything about using a firearm. In most cases the shot is still around 100db. Silencers, outside the US, are most often considered a courtesy to people around you, not a sinister device. They are thankfully now legal for hunting here, so maybe, just maybe once the ATF processes the flood of tax stamp applications, things in the country won't sound like a world war come deer season.

bigpete53:Dimensio: A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.

What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

JesseL:bigpete53: What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

To avoid hearing damage, to avoid spooking wildlife, to improve accuracy, to avoid upsetting neighbors, and because they're fun. In most places they're considered a courtesy and they're sold without restrictions.

Thank Hollywood and moral panic for the draconian suppressor restrictions we have in the US.

Like I said, if you say that particular law is excessive, fine, but that's still a very minor law in the grand scheme of things.

JesseL:If you purchase a car without a license you can have it trailered to your home or to a private racetrack.

... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

JesseL:I don't believe target practice is allowed in any national park (national forests and BLM land may be okay though).

I know that BLM and National Forests are fine. Sorry for the typo.

JesseL:You really need to work on thinking before you type. Damned near everything you say is wrong and/or stupid.

You're the one arguing that one should be able to own a firearm without having to know how to use it safely. Maybe you should take your own advice.

bigpete53:redmid17: bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.

You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.

Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.

They aren't but that's not what you initially said. You stated that you need to be licensed to purchase a car, which is false, and that the license proves you can legally operate said car on public property. How do you think junkyard operators purchase non-functioning cars? They don't drive them back to the yard. They pay a tow truck operator to tow it back or load it on a flatbed truck. You or I could walk into any junkyard or used car lot, plunk down the necessary cash, and walk out of the lot with ownership of the car transferred while arranging for someone else to move the car as needed.

Typically to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in public you need some kind of permit, CCW or hunting licenses are the two most common examples. Both usually require an education and training before they get issued. However if you are shooting on your private property, then no training or education are required to partake. Simply transporting the gun after purchase isn't indicative of anything.

bigpete53:Click Click D'oh: But is it necessary for the purchase? You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase. You weren't talking about operating in public.

No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.

You can pay someone to haul a car to a national park and drive around without a license too. What;s your point?

redmid17:Typically to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in public you need some kind of permit, CCW or hunting licenses are the two most common examples. Both usually require an education and training before they get issued. However if you are shooting on your private property, then no training or education are required to partake. Simply transporting the gun after purchase isn't indicative of anything.

Do you support all gun owners undergoing training to understand how to operate a firearm and how to properly handle and store it prior to being able to purchase one?

We should have laws against robbing banks, and we should have laws against shooting people. However we don't really want to prevent law abiding citizens from depositing their money in a bank, nor do we want to prevent law abiding citizens from being able to own a gun.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted? No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

Which is it?

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (often mis-attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but a good quote none the less). Basically, this is why yelling "fire" in a theater or making kiddie-porn is illegal: it infringes on other peoples' rights in the process.

Similarly, using "arms" like nuclear weapons would be impossible -- even in theory -- without impacting lots of other people & violating their rights, hence the restriction. There's no similar problem with, say, handguns.

/ and restricting the rights of duly-convicted criminals is not a problem, constitutionally-speaking -- I've got no problem keeping guns out of their hands

"I wanted to shoot people because that's what I saw growing up," said Baker, 20, a Camden native who spent four years in jail after being involved in several shootings. "When I was younger, I would see my boys and cousins going into jail and when they got out, all the girls wanted them. So, I wanted to go to jail. I wanted to be like America's Most Wanted. I wanted my name to be known on the streets."

bigpete53:... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed. Now, who is going to pay me? Are you going to require the individual too. That's unconstitutional. You can't make someone pay to exercise a right. Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right. Again, unconstitutional. How about the state pays for it? Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training. Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this? One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven... Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution? Yeah, good luck with that.

bigpete53:redmid17: Typically to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in public you need some kind of permit, CCW or hunting licenses are the two most common examples. Both usually require an education and training before they get issued. However if you are shooting on your private property, then no training or education are required to partake. Simply transporting the gun after purchase isn't indicative of anything.

Do you support all gun owners undergoing training to understand how to operate a firearm and how to properly handle and store it prior to being able to purchase one?

If so, we are in agreement.

If not, why not?

If it's mandatory, then it needs to be provided for free by the local government. I make an exception for hunter's education course is in place for many reasons not related to gun safety. I grew up in and around guns, received training from family and instructors, and passed the hunter ed course all before I purchased my own gun.

I shy away from mandating it because I don't see a uniform adoption of training requirements or support from many local governments (eg Chicago which has a standing ban on ranges and stores in the city limits but require range time for legal gun ownership), and I'm not sure anything less would meet constitutional muster.

bigpete53:You're the one arguing that one should be able to own a firearm without having to know how to use it safely. Maybe you should take your own advice.

I'd argue that anyone who purchases a firearm should know how to use it safely, but that the government isn't competent or trustworthy enough to make that good idea into a legal mandate covering a fundamental right.

It's all to easy for that "common sense" requirement to turn into something like the Jim Crow literacy tests for voting.

That's why I'm in favor of firearms safety classes in school and wide availability and encouragement of firearms training to the general public.

Education is really farking important, but allowing it to be turned into a weapon against the freedom of the people is a bad idea.

Click Click D'oh:bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed. Now, who is going to pay me? Are you going to require the individual too. That's unconstitutional. You can't make someone pay to exercise a right. Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right. Again, unconstitutional. How about the state pays for it? Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training. Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this? One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Yes. Basic firearms safety. How to store, handle, and operate basic firearms. Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? No. Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? No. Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven... Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day? No.

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution? Yeah, good luck with that.

So you're telling me that we can require people to get an ID to vote, but not take a 2-4 hour class to handle a deadly weapon? That makes sense.

JesseL:It's all to easy for that "common sense" requirement to turn into something like the Jim Crow literacy tests for voting.

You mean like the laws that require ID cards to vote?

JesseL:Education is really farking important, but allowing it to be turned into a weapon against the freedom of the people is a bad idea.

So we shouldn't try, right?

Click Click D'oh:In border states? Most of them. Already lost on car out from under me because of that.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted? No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

Which is it?

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (often mis-attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but a good quote none the less). Basically, this is why yelling "fire" in a theater or making kiddie-porn is illegal: it infringes on other peoples' rights in ...

I wasn't asking about that. I was asking which is it: your rights do not need explanation or justification and you can exercise them for any reason, or not.

Aldon:Your point is lost to me here... are you saying you think firearms should be limited to only private property?

A lot of gun owners state that they'd LOVE firearms to be 'regulated' the same as cars. Consider that you can trailer a non-street legal car over public roads all you like, assuming the trailer itself is legal.

Carrying a firearm is not the same as operating it. Despite this, I think it reasonable to consider a 'ready to use' firearm about the same as driving a car even if you're not actually shooting it, you're carrying it with reasonable expectation you might end up using it, even if the odds are really low.

Thus, you need a CCW type permit(wording can vary) in order to carry a firearm ready for operation. Unloaded open carry? Same as trailering a non-street legal car. No license? You're restricted to carrying it unloaded, preferably cased, on public property.

vanbiber874:I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.

Going by context it's a sports team of students, not 'armed officers'. Remember, shooting is an Olympic Sport, so it's not necessarily out of line for a school to have a shooting team. Going by history and the Olympics, their most likely weapon would be single shot .22lr rifles.

vanbiber874:The level of burden for properly educating students is high enough without the added responsibility of including a firearms course on safe sex or driving.

Does this still hold true? Personally, I think that there should be a 'general safety' course in school. SexEd may or may not make sense in it(crosses over into health/biology type classes), but driver's ed would. I'd also cover poisons, electricity, gas, flammable chemicals, monoxide, first aid, how to fight a fire, etc... Firearm safety would probably be 1/2-1 hour of instruction in the whole class.

Back on the article: Fix the 'thug' culture in the area, bring in effective education and job opportunities, legalize drugs so that the gangs don't have the money to obtain weapons and the incentive to use them in order to 'protect' their money-earning territories, watch the violence drop.

Click Click D'oh:bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed. Now, who is going to pay me? Are you going to require the individual too. That's unconstitutional. You can't make someone pay to exercise a right. Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right. Again, unconstitutional. How about the state pays for it? Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training. Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this? One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven... Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution? Yeah, good luck with that.

bigpete53:JesseL:It's all to easy for that "common sense" requirement to turn into something like the Jim Crow literacy tests for voting.You mean like the laws that require ID cards to vote?

When those laws are used to prevent lawful (but undesirable for someone with an interest in disenfranchising a certain voting bloc) voters from being able to? Then yes exactly like that.

bigpete53:JesseL: Education is really farking important, but allowing it to be turned into a weapon against the freedom of the people is a bad idea.So we shouldn't try, right?

Correct. We sure as shiat shouldn't try to hand over that power to the government.

We should make every effort to educate people about firearms safety without turning it into a prerequisite for the exercise of one of our most fundamental liberties though.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone who wants to reduce unnecessary deaths would resist widespread firearms education, but demand it a legal requisite for gun ownership if they didn't plan to use it as a way of infringing on people's rights.

StaleCoffee:Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed. Now, who is going to pay me? Are you going to require the individual too. That's unconstitutional. You can't make someone pay to exercise a right. Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right. Again, unconstitutional. How about the state pays for it? Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training. Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this? One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven... Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution? Yeah, good luck with that.

By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.

No the government does provide you with a free printing press or materials to make a sign. Why would it do the same for guns?

If you think someone can be made competent and safe with a firearm in a generalized all in one class then you are either 1) deluding yourself about the expanse of the issue -or- 2) Aren't really aiming to ensure safety and competence at all but just looking for something punitive to force on gun owners.

Do you also think that a CDL should be lumped in with a general drivers ed course and could be taken online?

bigpete53:So you're telling me that we can require people to get an ID to vote, but not take a 2-4 hour class to handle a deadly weapon?

The SCOTUS seems to be doing pretty well with smacking down ID requirements for voting, none of which ever required a class anyways..

And 2-4 hours for firearms competence across all types? Oh my... Not that I'm (or my insurance carrier) signing off on.

redmid17:StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed. Now, who is going to pay me? Are you going to require the individual too. That's unconstitutional. You can't make someone pay to exercise a right. Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right. Again, unconstitutional. How about the state pays for it? Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training. Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this? One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven... Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution? Yeah, good luck with that.

By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.

No the government does provide you with a free printing press or materials to make a sign. Why would it do the same for guns?

I hear that teachers also work for free and everyone has equal access to educ... HAHA sorry I couldn't finish that one.

To be fair, though, you can learn the *GENERAL* rules of safe firearms handling that quickly, but competence with different types takes practice, and you aren't going to get that much practice in that short a time, not on all the possible different types of actions.

StaleCoffee:redmid17: StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed. Now, who is going to pay me? Are you going to require the individual too. That's unconstitutional. You can't make someone pay to exercise a right. Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right. Again, unconstitutional. How about the state pays for it? Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training. Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this? One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven... Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution? Yeah, good luck with that.

By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.

No the government does provide you with a free printing press or materials to make a sign. Why would it do the same for guns?

I hear that teachers also work for free and everyone has equal access to educ... HAHA sorry I couldn't finish that one.

Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

Click Click D'oh:Zasteva: Allow me to rephrase: target practice with a firearm is practice in operating a weapon designed to kill. It improves your handling proficiency and aim.

So you finally admit that practicing with a firearm simply improves proficiency with the firearm and does nothing towards actually practicing to kill.

"Finally"? I made an imprecise statement, you disagreed and I rephrased and I'm "finally admitting"? WTF?

But you also overstate your case. I don't agree that it does "nothing towards actually practicing to kill". To kill with a firearm you must point the weapon and pull the trigger, and the bullet must hit somewhere that will eventually prove fatal. Target practice helps with the aiming part and even the proper pulling of the trigger part. The only think left is the intent to kill, but that's not essential, lots of people killing people with guns when they didn't intend to.

Click Click D'oh:Took you a while to be honest with that. I note, that you still have yet to admit that not all firearms are designed to kill. Still working on that one then. Don't worry, honesty will come eventually.

I didn't realize you were waiting such a "confession" from me. But I thought I covered that with my earlier statement:

"Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of guns are designed primarily for other purposes (shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too."

I know you saw that because you turned around and replaced "guns" with "cars" and spat it right back out at me. Regardless -- yes, there are rare firearms that are designed specifically for target shooting and not for killing. But as above, I'm sure they will work for killing too, in a pinch.

Zasteva: The lethality of the firearm is part of the fascination with it.

Click Click D'oh: If true, explain they why the lowly .22, the least powerful of firearms, is the most common firearm? Seems like an awful odd way of being fascinated with lethality... but finding the least lethal option...

Oh right. I forgot that .22 is non-lethal. Funny, since I was just at a kids birthday party and they gave them to the kids rather than squirt guns. And yeah, it's so much better to hunt small game with .45 -- no need to even chop them up, just drop the bits right in the stew!

Zasteva: If a person has zero interest in operating a weapon designed to kill, then why practice with it?

Click Click D'oh: Friendly competition

I can have friendly competition with a non-lethal projectile too. This doesn't explain why I would choose to compete with the lethal vs. non-lethal.

Click Click D'oh: Personal competition and improvement [...]

... of one's ability to use a lethal weapon. Again, not an explanation of why I would choose the lethal over the non-lethal.

Click Click D'oh: Because it's a lot of fun for some people to have the discipline and skill necessary to make a tiny group at several hundred yards

Yes, some do. Most people shoot at targets at much shorter ranges. Most ranges I've seen have substantially more short range target areas than 100+ yard ones.

Nevertheless, it's a good point. Most pellet guns and paint ball guns don't have that kind of accuracy at long range.

Zasteva: Why not use a non-lethal alternative that can poke holes in paper just as well?

Click Click D'oh: Because physics.

Click Click D'oh: Show me a non-lethal alternative that is accurate enough to group at 100 yards.

It's possible that you are right about this. It may be that the kinetic energy required to sent a projectile 100 yards downrange with high accuracy makes it inherently lethal. I don't know.

I'm not particular concerned about long guns anyway (I don't know anyone who's getting tight groupings with a pistol at 100 yards). They are seldom used in crimes or suicides, and they are pretty hard to conceal.

Zasteva: So how about this -- non-lethal ammunition (paint/dye-pack bullets, rubber bullets, etc) are all available to anyone but you need a special license to get lethal bullets.

Click Click D'oh: You better be prepared to give that license to anyone competing with a firearm in any type of event... because physics.

Not necessary. Have the firearms for that kind of target shooting be stored on range and not allowed to leave the range without the proper license. Then anyone can compete without any license or background check at all. If they get serious enough that they want to bring their own firearm then they can do the paperwork.

Click Click D'oh: Oh, and to all other American citizens, because they do after all have the right to effective self defense.

Exactly -- killing people. That's the point -- most people want guns for hunting or self-defense (i.e.: killing).

The "oh but guns are useful for target shooting is just a smokescreen, and easily solved by allowing *anyone* to use a gun under the controlled conditions of a firing range, and make the range take responsibility for proper storage and safety conditions.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.

Then you have two traits in common with same-sex marriage opponents: a hatred of civil liberties and a desire to amend the United States Constitution that will never be realised.

Nice jab, but I actually like civil liberties just fine.

I don't really have a problem with people owning firearms, or using them for hunting or even self defense. I have a problem with the attitude exhibited by people who are unwilling to subject their ownership and use of firearms to the same kind of time, place and manner restrictions that are used for other other civil rights, such as freedom of speech or assembly, and instead insist on a right to bear arms with zero oversight or regulation.

The last defensive pistol course I was involved in, the students were shooting eight inch steel plates at 100 yards with their handguns to build up their confidence in their equipment. There are also silhouette shooting competitions where the participants engage steel targets at ranges longer than 100 yards with handguns. So yes, there are long range practical shooting exercises with handguns.

Zasteva:Not necessary. Have the firearms for that kind of target shooting be stored on range and not allowed to leave the range without the proper license. Then anyone can compete without any license or background check at all. If they get serious enough that they want to bring their own firearm then they can do the paperwork.

Constitution

Zasteva:Exactly -- killing people. That's the point -- most people want guns for hunting or self-defense (i.e.: killing).

One application which negates your suggested policy suddenly equals most people want guns to kill, in your mind? Projection much?

Zasteva:The "oh but guns are useful for target shooting is just a smokescreen, and easily solved by allowing *anyone* to use a gun under the controlled conditions of a firing range, and make the range take responsibility for proper storage and safety conditions.